So what you're telling us is that we should let the government regulate the internet, because they might tell us what VoIP to use, but at least we won't have companies telling us what VoIP to use?
It does. Doesn't your party think it can field a competent candidate? Or does it feel that the voters are too stupid to vote for the "right" person, so they have to be tricked? Yes, I know that sounds like a false dilemma, but what are the other options?
Sounds a lot like a friend of mine that suffered from a strange blue pigmentation. It would appear on his hand just before an exam. Maybe your friend had the same condition?
By your logic, if I built a bridge, I would be owed royalties every time someone drove over it.
That's called a toll, and our governments pretty much have a monopoly on the highway system and almost never remove a toll once it is imposed for any reason.
Not at the same rates that poor people do. Rich people keep vast amounts of wealth locked away in their personal savings/investments. Poor people spend just about everything that they make.
People like Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki would agree with you. That's why they're poor. So tell me, why is it better for a poor person to spend their entire paycheck on a new TV than for a rich person to invest the same amount in an apartment house or a new business that makes stuff?
But, from my experience, that's not how it's used. There are like 9 out of 10 cars used for only driving 1 person. And that's sad. I'm breathing this air.
You totally didn't answer his question. How is targeting CO2 emissions in one city going to make much of an impact on what we've been told is a global problem? Answer: it won't. This is a political move, not a scientific one.
Obviously there are some variations in output but over all, an engine which produces X-output of CO2 is going to produce some like ratio of other greenhouse gases.
Ah, I see the problem. CO and NOx are not greenhouse gases. They are pollutants that ACTUALLY HURT LIVING CREATURES. I see the EPA propaganda has already increased ignorance.
This isn't a change in technology; this is a change in politics. In fact, it's anti-science. Science is not driving this change; the bureaucrats are passing a mandate without regard for the fact that the technology is not up to speed.
Why is taxing the "rich" always the answer? Do rich people not buy stuff? If you take their money and give it to the government, then you're just saying it's better for the government to buy stuff than rich people. The problem is, the government doesn't actually do anything to stimulate the economy-- except when they buy lots of military hardware, and defense spending always the first thing on the block, isn't it? So what we'll be doing is grabbing that "rich" money and giving it directly to poorer people through the entitlement system. Does this mean that the poor people will be buying better stuff?
Atheism is not an ideology any more than not believing in Tarot cards is one.
Ah, I see what you did there. You twisted the Slashdot meme, "Atheism is not a religion any more than being bald is a hair color" and the like, merely by substituting the word, "ideology". Atheism is an ideology, especially when it is used by a government to oppress and murder its citizens as it was in the USSR and even today in China.
Stalin and Mao changed the figure of authority from an unquestionable man in the sky to one in a mansion. They made a religion of themselves and their politics.
No. They established atheist regimes that were supposed to be utopias. North Korea is a communist nation that does encourage something akin to leader worship-- although they are also interesting as they seem to have a monarchical line of succession.
The dogmatic faith of their ideologies was the danger, not the fact that they didn't believe in gods.
How is this any different than pointing out that belief in a God is not a danger, only the dogma?
This is a much debated and easily nuanced theological issue that's a bit too complicated to hammer into a Slashdot comment. There are plenty of theological forums you could join on which to discuss the implications, although I highly doubt you will have the satisfaction of freely bludgeoning your opponents with arguments based on ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't have a bunch of "crazy TEA partiers" on their cases.
So what you're telling us is that we should let the government regulate the internet, because they might tell us what VoIP to use, but at least we won't have companies telling us what VoIP to use?
[citation needed]
We'll find out in Jan when the GOP isn't in the minority in both houses and the White House.
It does. Doesn't your party think it can field a competent candidate? Or does it feel that the voters are too stupid to vote for the "right" person, so they have to be tricked? Yes, I know that sounds like a false dilemma, but what are the other options?
Sounds a lot like a friend of mine that suffered from a strange blue pigmentation. It would appear on his hand just before an exam. Maybe your friend had the same condition?
That's called a toll, and our governments pretty much have a monopoly on the highway system and almost never remove a toll once it is imposed for any reason.
I'm not sure why you're responding to something I didn't say, but... OK!
People like Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki would agree with you. That's why they're poor. So tell me, why is it better for a poor person to spend their entire paycheck on a new TV than for a rich person to invest the same amount in an apartment house or a new business that makes stuff?
I'm a project manager and network analyst, and at 37 I'm still waiting for my tenure.
Avatar is an anti-capitalist version of "Dances with Wolves" where the "indians" are blue.
Breathing CO2 is not harmful.
Ah, I see the problem. CO and NOx are not greenhouse gases. They are pollutants that ACTUALLY HURT LIVING CREATURES. I see the EPA propaganda has already increased ignorance.
This isn't a change in technology; this is a change in politics. In fact, it's anti-science. Science is not driving this change; the bureaucrats are passing a mandate without regard for the fact that the technology is not up to speed.
Why is taxing the "rich" always the answer? Do rich people not buy stuff? If you take their money and give it to the government, then you're just saying it's better for the government to buy stuff than rich people. The problem is, the government doesn't actually do anything to stimulate the economy-- except when they buy lots of military hardware, and defense spending always the first thing on the block, isn't it? So what we'll be doing is grabbing that "rich" money and giving it directly to poorer people through the entitlement system. Does this mean that the poor people will be buying better stuff?
It's the one thing I wish the USA would copy from them. Instead, we're copying their economy and distaste for personal freedom.
Basically the only ones that weren't were Jefferson and Franklin, and both still believed in God.
Hitler was a vegetarian, which is eerily similar to how Steve Jobs doesn't eat meat. Fascists both!
Congratulations: a red herring and an appeal to ridicule all in one sentence!
Ah, I see what you did there. You twisted the Slashdot meme, "Atheism is not a religion any more than being bald is a hair color" and the like, merely by substituting the word, "ideology". Atheism is an ideology, especially when it is used by a government to oppress and murder its citizens as it was in the USSR and even today in China.
No. They established atheist regimes that were supposed to be utopias. North Korea is a communist nation that does encourage something akin to leader worship-- although they are also interesting as they seem to have a monarchical line of succession.
How is this any different than pointing out that belief in a God is not a danger, only the dogma?
Yes; we should just ignore the mysteries of the universe instead of pondering them. Back to WoW and cheetos!
A young woman was expected to be a virgin. It's like the word, "maid" in English.
Future generations will be confused by our colloquialisms and metaphors as well.
Find me a copy of "Quelle"-- even a fragment-- or you and your like are simply arguing without assuming the burden of proof.
What point are you trying to make, again?
No, in a logical debate, ad hominems are not allowed; neither are appeals to ridicule.
This is a much debated and easily nuanced theological issue that's a bit too complicated to hammer into a Slashdot comment. There are plenty of theological forums you could join on which to discuss the implications, although I highly doubt you will have the satisfaction of freely bludgeoning your opponents with arguments based on ignorance.